From: Cogliano, Gerain

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:48 PM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Farber, Glenn <Farber.Glenn@epa.gov>

Subject: EPA's response to "Last set of comments on RMP NPRM"

H i Danielle,

Below are EPA’s responses which have been included in the redline

- strikeout version of preamble:

A. Page 1

– Prefer 90 Day Comment Period to 60 Days

B. Page 30

– OGC comments precluding use of regulatory text

– is count erproductive.

EPA needs to explain the actual words in definitions

– this makes the preamble harder to read and

follow. Can EPA work around whatever this rule is to discuss the actual regulatory text so that the

reader can understand the discussion? S ee other comments with the same problem

– including

discussion of catastrophic release on page 32. How do we explain the definition change, without citing

the words of the definition

– and making the case that this is just a clarification? EPA needs to return to

the earlier words to make this understandable. Also

– page 42

– root cause.

EPA response: The Office of Federal Register does not allow regulatory text to be quoted in the

preamble.

C. Page 106

– Before “Guidance on Evaluating Safer Technologies”

EPA also seeks comment on whether facilities can be exempted from STAA evaluations for a given

chemical and process, if there was a previous STAA evaluation that applied to the facility or industry

wide which was still applicable. The pulp and paper industry has cited the analysis performed for the

industry with regard to the use of chlorine dioxide, which recommended that the industry continue use

of that chemical for the bleaching process. It could be unnecessary for the facility to repeat that analysis

in this case. CITATION

EPA response: EPA added preamble language asking for comment on whether to limit applicability of

this provision to a specific process.

D. Page 107 and Later: Tables 9, 11 And 17

In the “when t o complete column” for the LEPC information

– EPA writes “Develop by June 5, 2021 and

provide upon request”

Suggest revision to “Provide upon request on June 5, 2021 or later” This information should not be

required until it is requested.

However , if EPA goes with the annual updating

– then it would say Complete on “June 5, 2021 and

annually thereafter”

Incidentally

– I don’t recommend that EPA use “June 5” as a compliance date. Should be June 1 or

something else that can be remembered.

EPA response: These examples are intended to demonstrate the current rule requirements, which

include developing summaries annually and then providing upon request. EPA is asking for comment on

this approach in the section on LEPC information availability

.Furthermore, the June 5 th date is a hypothetical date based on the example scenario which includes a

rule effective date of June 5 th (see footnote to table).

Thanks,

Gerain

From: Jones, Danielle [ m ailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov ]

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:23 AM

To: Cogliano, Gerain < Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov >

Subject: Last set of comments

Hi Gerain,

Below are the last set of comments on the RMP rule.

A. Page 1

– Prefer 90 Day Comment Period to 60 Days

B. Page 30

– OGC comments precluding use of regulatory text

– is counterproductive.

EPA needs to explain the actual words in definitions

– this ma kes the preamble harder to read and

follow. Can EPA work around whatever this rule is to discuss the actual regulatory text so that the

reader can understand the discussion? See other comments with the same problem

– including

discussion of catastrophi c release on page 32. How do we explain the definition change, without citing

the words of the definition

– and making the case that this is just a clarification? EPA needs to return to

the earlier words to make this understandable. Also

– page 42

– r oot cause.

C. Page 106

– Before “Guidance on Evaluating Safer Technologies”

EPA also seeks comment on whether facilities can be exempted from STAA evaluations for a given

chemical and process, if there was a previous STAA evaluation that ap plied to the facility or industry

wide which was still applicable. The pulp and paper industry has cited the analysis performed for the

industry with regard to the use of chlorine dioxide, which recommended that the industry continue use

of that chemical for the bleaching process. It could be unnecessary for the facility to repeat that analysis

in this case. CITATION

D. Page 107 and Later: Tables 9, 11 And 17

In the “when to complete column” for the LEPC information

– EPA writes “Develop by June 5, 2021 and

provide upon request”

Suggest revision to “Provide upon request on June 5, 2021 or later” This information should not be

required until it is requested.

However, if EPA goes with the annual updating

– then it would say Complet e on “June 5, 2021 and

annually thereafter”

Incidentally

– I don’t recommend that EPA use “June 5” as a compliance date. Should be June 1 or

something else that can be remembered.Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395

- 1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov